In law, with rare exception such as legislative action, change is evolutionary and methodical. Unlike biomedical science where a breakthrough can quickly lead to dramatic changes in medical practice, legal precedent is more adherent and must evolve either through the legislative process or on a court by court basis in case law. Nevertheless, compelling evidence will pave the road to change within the law. Health care research conducted over the last three decades has produced a body of empirical evidence that suggests an overhaul of our current legal standards of informed consent is overdue.

This article uses health services research to examine the fundamental assumptions of our current informed consent laws and propose legal reform. Much has been written on how to bring the law to bear on medical practice in order to improve patient rights and protect physicians, but far less has been done to bring the practice of medicine to inform our legal standards. Prior legal scholarship on informed consent has made arguments regarding reform from both ethical and legal perspectives; however, only a small few have incorporated clinical and health services research as well as ethical and legal principles to analyze informed consent.

Understanding the factors that impact a juvenile's adjudicative competence in delinquency and criminal proceedings today requires some familiarity with mental illness, mental retardation, and developmental immaturity. Current research and studies shed new light on these factors that juvenile advocates, prosecutors, judges, and policymakers must routinely confront. This article discusses some of the issues involved in competency determinations of juveniles awaiting trial; addressing both the more traditional factors, such as mental illness and mental retardation, and some of the more recent studies and literature identifying developmental immaturity as an emerging basis for challenging the competency of juveniles to stand trial.

Juvenile justice systems routinely presume that adolescents accused of delinquent or criminal misconduct are competent to stand trial. Adults charged with criminal misconduct are also presumed to be competent. Competency requires that citizens accused of criminal misconduct understand the charges against them, have rudimentary understanding of the court process, be able to understand and answer questions posed to them by their counsel, and be able to make decisions about their trial such as whether to testify, and whether to accept or reject plea bargains.

Color it green. In a health care era driven by consumer demand, consumers are increasingly seeking Internet-based health services. Every day approximately seventy-three million Americans access the Internet in search of health information, with an average of six-million people seeking health advice. At present, a supply of over one-hundred thousand health-related websites serve the public’s demand for information and advice, with an average of one-thousand five hundred new sites added monthly. Surprisingly, consumers and students make up more than 30% of all healthrelated website users.4 From this union of cyberspace and the medical field, cybermedicine has emerged.

What does cybermedicine encompass? Cybermedicine is “the science of applying Internet and global networking technologies to medicine and public health, of studying the impact and implications of the Internet, and of evaluating opportunities and the challenges for health care.” General use of the Internet under this definition encompasses exploration and exploitation of the Internet for consumer health education, patient self-support, and professional medical education and research.